Talk Wisdom's goal is to defend the tenets and values of Biblical Christian faith. We defend our Constitutional Republic and Charters of Freedom, especially when speaking out against destructive social and political issues. As followers of our Savior and Lord, we should boldly stand up for Jesus Christ in our present circumstances. He is our Savior, Lord, and King, and His love needs to be shed abroad in our hearts and in our world – now.

John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

Charles Krauthammer appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and explained why America is changing so rapidly. One reason that this decision is seen by at least 40% (if the polls being revealed are correct) of Americans, which is 128 million of us (if, again, the polls are correct) as wrong is that the judiciary, according to the Constitution, does not have the right to create new law. Those of us that disagree with this ruling do so for several reasons. The biggest one is the fact that many Americans know that the Supreme Court is not supposed to make new law! That is what the Legislative branch is for, and the legislatures of each state where making such decisions through the voting process within their states. Thirty of our fifty states had passed laws declaring that the thousands of years old definition of marriage (instituted by God) should remain as the union of one man and one woman. Unfortunately, liberal judges in the courts started to strike down these decisions. But several states gained court decisions that upheld the We The People decisions that were voted on within their states. Was it right to just sweep them away as the Extreme Court did? No. Of course not!

The second reason why this ruling was wrong is because two judges who performed homosexual marriages should have recused themselves from this decision. The third reason why is the chief justice’s dissent which explained why this should not have been done the way that it came down.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

The dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts, however, contains a number of real gems. Here are 11 quotes from John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

On the proper role of the federal judiciary:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:

The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.

On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

These eleven points help explain exactly why at least 128 million Americans have the right to also dissent on this decision! Yet, we are being viciously attacked and demonized by the supposedly “tolerant” leftists on the winning side. However, two days did not go by before the gay gestapo activists stated their continued goal to destroy our First Amendment freedoms.

When people say “it’s all about marriage equality” or “equal protection” we all should respond with a question regarding that other awful decision on abortion over 30 years ago:

That was another sweeping decision made by the Extreme Court that also took away States rights on protection of babies in the womb.

Back to the topic.

Charles Krauthammer also shared three reasons why America has been in the throes of secularism since Darwin. He did state that at least our churches are not empty like many churches in Europe.

The secular left realized that it wasn’t going to win in the public square, so they had to go through the culture. Many parents can no longer resist what is being pushed in the social media, Hollywood, and the rabid progressive push found in non-Christian colleges and universities.

Now, that debate’s been shut down because Anthony Kennedy and his four renegades rode in, shut off the debate, and determined, “Right here it is! It’s right there in the 14th Amendment, see? See? It’s right there, that people in this country who are not happy ’cause they’re left out of things have a right to be included in those things, and it says it right there in the 14th Amendment.” It does? “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! It’s right there.” I don’t see it. “Well, you have to be a lawyer and be thinking like we do to see it. But it’s there.”

A-ha. The same thing that happened with abortion. See, there’s gonna… The culture has now, society has now been roiled and the debate is gonna rage on. It’s not over. It isn’t gonna be over, because never forget this. No matter what victories the left, the socialists, the liberals, the Democrats, whatever you want to call ’em — no matter how many victories they have — it is never enough. No matter how much money they get to spend, no matter how much money they get in benefit, no matter what it is that they demand, it is never enough.

Do you know why? Because when Justice Kennedy and the rest of these people talk about dignity and self-esteem. That’s exactly what’s on the table here. I don’t care if it goes gay marriage to Obamacare. I don’t care what the issue is. The Confederate flag? You’ve got people over there who are miserably unhappy about something, and they believe that getting something — taking something away — from other people will make them happy. And it never does. It’s never enough.

And it’s going to be the case with gay marriage. It is not going to make them feel the way they want to feel. It’s not going to erase whatever baggage they have. It never is. This is not specific to gay marriage. It’s specific to liberals, because their targets, their quests or what have you, are rooted in a void, if you will. I think they’re absent God in many cases in their lives. Not just gays. I’m talking about the global warming crowd. Everybody who denies the existence of God in favor of a different god somewhere over here, it’s not enough.

[In] fact you could almost say, if you study leftists — the welfare state, the benefits state, whatever you want to call it — the more they get, the angrier they become. The more they get, the more unhappy they become. This is something that I have noticed, particularly these past six years. Black America’s angrier than it’s ever been. Various special interest groups on the left are angrier, more unhappy than they’ve ever been, while at the same time we are hearing it’s the greatest week for Obama in his presidency last week.

[So] as I was saying, to “fix” that, you have to take other parts of the Constitution that do exist and deemphasize them or ignore them. Freedom of speech and religious liberty. And I’m telling you, it’s a toss-up which is gonna come first. No, it’s not. Religious liberty. The attack on religion is next, on organized religion. There’s already… I got a couple of stories in the Stack about leftists making an immediate concerted move to remove the tax exempt status from all churches if they will not perform homosexual marriages.

It’s not enough for you out there to say, “Okay, well, the court said gay marriage is legal, fine.” That’s not enough. You must actively embrace it. You must actively support it. You may not oppose it. You may not even dis it. In fact, folks, in Kennedy’s opinion… Get this. In Kennedy’s majority opinion, when talking about religious liberty (this is just so big of him), he grants that people of religious disagreement will continue to have the right of dissent.

But he didn’t say anything about the right to practice religious liberty. Not in this decision. They made all kinds of references — a couple/three — that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you’re free to dissent, meaning you’re free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, “You can’t deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don’t like it, and you’ll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!”

Any person with any semblance of logic, reason, and wisdom can plainly see that important decisions like these are being made outside of what is written in the Constitution. Those on the other side of the issue may have the right to their own beliefs, but they don’t have the right to demonize and punish those who disagree! Our belief in natural marriage – as it was instituted by God – has been a life-long personal and religious belief for me and millions of other Christians. We should continue to have the right to follow the Bible, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and our own religious consciences and convictions.

My next post will discuss how and why such moral depravity as this bogus decision is being forced upon Americans and why Bible based Christians recognize such sinful actions as signs of the times pointing towards Christ’s return.